/m/marlins

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The A’s, Diamondbacks, Indians, Marlins, Orioles, Padres, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies and Royals were eligible for Comp Round A picks. The teams that didn’t receive an extra pick from that pool were placed into a second pool that also included the Mariners and Twins

Yet the Pirates and Rays don't show up on the pick list, while the Cardinals and Brewers don't show up on the eligible list. (after reading the link to Callis, I see that they just forgot to include the Cardinals and Brewers....apparently two teams don't ultimately get a pick.)

I wonder if there was a voice in the room that said: "You know what? This is just too complicated."

In the simpler is best vein - forget the qualifying offers or Elias's old system...decide their are X number of picks for each off season (10 say) - and award them to the teams that lose the highest 10 salaried players based on either AAV or total contract value who sign with new teams.

Not sure what is the problem with competitive balance picks. At least in theory. People argue about the Cardinals getting one, and I understand that, but being well run shouldn't negate an institutional disparity. I like teams being able to trade draft picks, but I understand why baseball doesn't do it as a rule(and with slotting, that rule may not be as necessary as it was before).

I know "market" is hard to define but MSA should be reasonably conservative -- e.g. Baltimore and DC are separate MSAs and I think we'd agree their markets overlap more than that.

Anyway, point is that Miami is the #8 MSA, Phoenix #12, Seattle #15, San Diego 17 and, technically speaking, SF and Oak share #11. If we're going to consider Oakland small, that actually puts Tampa as the 20th largest team-MSA by population. If they've incorporated something like per capita income into the "pool" measure then OK.

Even so, these should be weighted in some fashion. San Diego sits at 3.2 M people -- really, if you have 3 M to yourself, you shouldn't need help, it's not a "structural" flaw. Even Tampa, StL, Baltimore are around 2.8 M. Cincy, Cleveland, KC are all down near 2 M and poor old Milwaukee is at 1.5. How about Milwaukee gets two picks every year and Pitt (2.4 M), Cincy, Cle and KC get a second pick every other year (rotating). If you want to hand one pick each to those middling ones, fine.

I really have no problem with this whatsoever. Obviously nothing is perfect and the well run Cardinals with baseball's best fans or some such bullish!t don't need another pick, but it seems pretty clear that the other teams are at some disadvantage.

@9 Well, I guess it depends on why they're doing this. If the goal is parity, then the fact that a team like the Cards are in there is a problem, and honestly, I don't know what else the point could be. That said, one fly in the ointment isn't really enough to say the system is broken, and I think the other teams are well placed. Seems like a reading of teams that have historically been able to build decent teams but ultimately had trouble breaking through or sustaining due to monetary concerns. Only problem there is that some of these monetary concerns are self made, but even then MLB cares about viewership so they would be happier if teams were good despite themselves.

St. Louis is a smaller-sized market, and look, I'm the biggest Cardinals hater out there, but they've exploited their market well and shouldn't be punished for doing so. I don't see why they should be excluded.

The only thing I really don't like about the competitive balance draft is the lottery aspect. What they should do is take the 10-12 smallest market teams, and give the top 5-6 teams in terms of W-L record a competitive balance pick, thus rewarding the teams that are succeeding despite their low revenue, and give the others an incentive to do better. It shouldn't be awarding arbitrarily like this.

St. Louis is a smaller-sized market, and look, I'm the biggest Cardinals hater out there, but they've exploited their market well and shouldn't be punished for doing so. I don't see why they should be excluded.

The only legitimate reason I can think of to exclude the Cards is, unlike most of the others on that list, the Cards do have a structural advantage - being the farthest west west and south franchise for 50-plus years of MLB helped build its current market. Yes, they've done a spectacular job of taking advantage of it, but they did have a significant advantage over the Royals and Brewers and Padres (and weren't hemmed in, to a degree, as the Reds and Pirates were).

"They do extremely well from a baseball standpoint and from a revenue standpoint," the Chicago Cubs' president of baseball operations said Wednesday. "It's probably the last organization in baseball that needs that kind of annual gift that they receive."...

"It's not necessarily the type of thing [the Cardinals] need, given their performance on the field and off the field," Epstein said. "They do a fantastic job, and it just doesn't seem like something they need at this point."

"They do extremely well from a baseball standpoint and from a revenue standpoint," the Chicago Cubs' president of baseball operations said Wednesday. "It's probably the last organization in baseball that needs that kind of annual gift that they receive."...

It's definitely not the last... I can think of a few he's pretty familiar with that would be less deserving.

Competitive balance probably doesn't actually matter to the people who run MLB. Fox pays money (to the whole league) to show the Yankees in the playoffs, and the only team that would prefer the Rays to be there is the Rays. And notice that the Rays preference ordering on AL East winners goes like this: Rays > Yankees > Red Sox > other teams. Since if NYY or BOS gets into the playoffs regularly, the Rays get a slice of the larger postseason pie the next time it's up for negotiation. The Rays care about competitive balance, but not TOO much.

What this probably is is an attempt to look good for the fans (who do, mostly, care about competitive balance) without doing anything to upset a system that most of the teams don't think is especially broken.

"They do extremely well from a baseball standpoint and from a revenue standpoint," the Chicago Cubs' president of baseball operations said Wednesday. "It's probably the last organization in baseball that needs that kind of annual gift that they receive."...

"It's not necessarily the type of thing [the Cardinals] need, given their performance on the field and off the field," Epstein said. "They do a fantastic job, and it just doesn't seem like something they need at this point."

Epstein continued, "We, on the other hand, share the 3rd largest MSA and still stink from a baseball standpoint. It just seems like something we would need at this point."

Competitive balance probably doesn't actually matter to the people who run MLB.

I am sure MLB and Fox would prefer that the Yankees/Red Sox/Cardinals/DOdgers do well most years, but there is a difference between the Yankees going 91-71 and going 108-54 in an average year, and I think without revenue sharing there would be a lot less interest in baseball as the same few teams were competitive every year. When the Yankees were dominating, attendance for most teams was pretty terrible.

I am sure MLB and Fox would prefer that the Yankees/Red Sox/Cardinals/DOdgers do well most years, but there is a difference between the Yankees going 91-71 and going 108-54 in an average year, and I think without revenue sharing there would be a lot less interest in baseball as the same few teams were competitive every year. When the Yankees were dominating, attendance for most teams was pretty terrible.

Yeah, the optimum degree of competitive balance is a complex analysis.

Total parity is clearly not optimal, because an incremental win for a popular team generates more revenue for MLB than a less popular team. But you need a certain degree of parity, lest the most popular teams be guaranteed of winning, and the less popular teams become hopeless, both which will cause fan interest, and revenue to decline.

I wasn't making a value statement and have no clue if I like this or not. The first part of my comment..

Not sure what is the problem with competitive balance picks. At least in theory.

Was directed to post 4, which said

You know what would be even simpler? Not having competitive balance picks.

I was more or less asking why someone opposes the concept, or if he was just talking about the complexity involved or what.

Second part of my comment.

People argue about the Cardinals getting one, and I understand that, but being well run shouldn't negate an institutional disparity.

Is probably the closest that comment came to saying what you said it said, but really the point was, if you are setting up a competitive balance pick because of market size disparity(which is what this is) then it shouldn't matter how well an organization does in order to merit the pick. Being well run shouldn't be a punishment.

In the past, with the first iteration of revenue sharing which was based strictly upon payroll, the Cardinals were paying into the revenue sharing pot around $11 mil a year, while the small market Phillies were collecting $11 mil a year, simply because the system was set up based upon payroll. Now that was an unfair system that made no sense.

The last part of my comment.

I like teams being able to trade draft picks, but I understand why baseball doesn't do it as a rule(and with slotting, that rule may not be as necessary as it was before).

Says exactly what it means. I like teams being able to trade draft picks, I understand why baseball doesn't. But I think that some of that reasoning is because of an older system, and maybe in a newer more savvy educated fanbase age, it might not be such a bad idea to revisit that rule.

I probably should have broken it up into multiple parts, but it was more or less just a couple off the cuff comments that I wasn't thinking someone would have a problem understanding it's meaning.

If competitive balance mechanisms are determined by the sum of individual actions, how much competitive balance should we expect these teams to enact? Probably not very much, since the Yankees are EVERYONE'S 1st or 2nd pick to win the division. (That said, it COULD yield a lot, if the preference of the Rays, Orioles and Blue Jays for winning the division was much stronger than their opposition to a non-them, non-NYY or BOS team winning the division, and the NYY and BOS didn't have comparably strong preferences in favor of their own team winning the division. But I bet NYY and BOS want to win pretty badly.)

#22 in any given year that's probably right. In the long run I think it is good for every team in the league to make an occasional run or at least not be terrible year-in, year-out like the Pirates were for 20 years.

Yeah, but since there are two teams that would be hurt by competitive balance and three that would benefit, most of that will cancel out. And so we should expect something that helps competitive balance a little bit, but not very much, like what we've got.

YR must be watching old boxing videos, else he would remind that being poorly run shouldn't be rewarded, yet this system still does that.

There is no way the Marlins should be getting a pick, if the intent of the CBL is to deal with the structural issues of being (a) in a smaller city (b) while in a system set up in a way that prevents the free relocation of teams to other cities. They make the list because they are small revenue. That the Marlins are small revenue is a choice, one that currently prevents them from being reasonably competitive. They are now being rewarded for doing so.

I would understand if they were trying to adjust for market size disparities as well as cost of living disparities (as local cost of living will depress revenues but not the player salaries they pay). Miami is probably middle of the pack among MLB cities when it comes to cost of living. But revenue size, or whatever "revenue pool" they're using here that has Miami among the have-nots, is an awful measure to use for that.